Dirty dairying: victory!

Last year, in a classic example of dirty dairying, dairy giant Fonterra was granted resource consent to dump 8,500 cubic meters of effluent per day into the Manawatu River. The decision was imediately challenged by local environmental groups, and today, after several months of mediation, they won. Fonterra will reduce its discharges, discharge to land where possible, and install equipment to clean its waste stream before putting it into the river. It isn't a total victory, but a significant step forward, and one we should all be pleased with.

As for Horizons, its clear they are just a rubber-stamp authority. Hopefully they'll be held accountable for their lax attitudes in the local body elections later this year.

Nick Smith and biofuels

Oh dear - it seems that Nick Smith has resorted to making shit up again in his quest to discredit the government's climate change policy. In his press release calling the government's increased biofuels sales obligation "too little, too late", he claims that

It is only since National announced its policy proposal on biofuels in our Bluegreen Vision for New Zealand last year that the Labour-led Government has got moving.

Really? The government announced its decision to set a sales target in law on August 30th, 2006 (and was presaged by a long series of cabinet papers and studies beforehand). Its biofuels sales obligation discussion document was released in mid-September (I blogged about it on the 13th). National's "Bluegreen" policy paper was released on October 6th. I think the facts speak for themselves.

As for the level of the target, there are significant limits on what the government can initially do in this area, due to both distribution infrastructure and the nature of the New Zealand vehicle fleet. We have large numbers of older Japanese imports which are not rated to run on biofuels, and maintaining the ability to provide them with pure fossil fuels requires extra tanks in service stations which simply do not exist at present. While I'd love to see a 10 or 20 percent biofuel obligation, the fact is we can't do it overnight. Instead, what we have is a path for getting there: a low initial target and clear policies to ensure that the car fleet moves towards being compatible with higher biofuel blends. There's also the fact that while the policy is studiously neutral about where the new biofuels can come from, it is really designed to push domestic production - so targets have been set at the upper limits of what is believed possible. And they're having the desired effect: Argent Energy and Shell have just announced their plans to produce enough biodiesel to meet 40% of the new 2012 target in one fell swoop. There are several other companies working on domestic production as well - Fonterra, AquaFlow and BioJoule (to name three) - and I think they will rise to meet the challenge and fill the newly-created market. If the policy works as expected, then around 2010 or so I expect the government to be announcing much stronger biofuels targets for post-2012, to further push the market. So, while we can't do it overnight, we will get there.

Climate change: a sustainable agenda

Colin James predicted that Helen Clark would attempt to link climate change and sustainability to national identity in a similar manner to the anti-nuclear legislation in her opening address to Parliament, and he wasn't wrong. It's a shrewd political move, trading on our self-image as a "clean and green" nation in a way that National simply cannot. But what about the policy agenda?

As someone who has taken a deep interest in climate change issues and policy for the past few years, I'm very pleased indeed. The government has committed to implementing the policies laid out in its New Zealand Energy Strategy and Sustainable Land Management discussion documents around emissions trading, forestry and agricultural emissions. There will be a price on carbon, at least in the electricity sector, by early next year at the latest, and likely a price on deforestation and nitrogen around the same time. These policies form the core of a comprehensive response to climate change, which while enacted ten years too late, is still better late than never. It likely won't result in our meeting our CP1 target, meaning we will have to buy credits on the international market, but it will position us well for any post-Kyoto regime.

But better, they've also strengthened the policy in a number of important ways. The increased biofuels sales obligation doesn't sound like much - but its at the limits of what we can produce domestically, and its a strong sign that we will see higher targets in a few years time once the issues with the car fleet are sorted out. The stronger emissions standards for imported vehicles are also an important step, and will result in a more rapid switch to a cleaner, more efficient vehicle fleet. The moves around sustainable government procurement, more efficient ministerial vehicles, and a carbon-neutral public service are all mostly symbolic, but it is important for the government to lead by example. They can't expect the rest of us to move to a more sustainable lifestyle if they are unwilling to do it themselves (a lesson the Americans should heed if they want to see the Chinese and Indians follow a more sustainable path to development).

So, overall, a good agenda. Now all they have to do is implement it.

Doing the numbers

With Labour's decision last night to finally move to expel Taito Philip Field (having carefully lured him into giving them an excuse which would allow them to reverse their previous position of natural justice), the media and National are trying to present it as a threat to the government's stability. But is it really? Look at the numbers. Without Field, Labour has 49 votes, plus one from the ever-reliable Jim Anderton. New Zealand First and United Future add a further 10 votes on confidence and supply, giving them 60 - one less than an absolute majority. So surely the government is in trouble?

I don't think so. In case anyone has forgotten, the government also has a co-operation agreement with the Greens, in which they agree not to oppose the government on confidence and supply in exchange for certain policy gains. With the Greens abstaining, the government has 60 votes out of 115 - a comfortable majority by MMP terms. The government is only in danger of falling if one of their confidence and supply partners fails to keep their word - in which case I expect the Greens to step in with a positive vote of confidence in order to salvage the just-announced sustainability platform.

(Meanwhile, the prospects of National cobbling together its own coalition are just as bleak as they were immediately after the election. With only 48 votes of their own, they would need to rely on ACT, United Future, NZ First and the Maori Party (or Field) to gain a bare majority. Good luck with that, guys).

The prospects seem slightly bleaker on the legislative front, where the government cannot rely on either its confidence partner's votes, or the Greens' abstention in order to pass legislation. However, they have in the past shown remarkable skill at building strong majorities behind their legislative agenda, with most bills passing by 70 votes rather than a bare 61. Field's departure won't affect that, however it will likely affect Labour's ability to work around its coalition partners and form an alternative bare-minimum majority with the Maori Party and the Greens (which has proved useful in the past). So we'll be seeing a lot more cooperation across party lines in future, at least until Field is replaced in a by-election. And I don't think that's a Bad Thing at all.

Robson Replies

Matt Robson has replied to the Privileges Committee's attempt to resurrect the ancient monarchical abuse of lese majeste - and being a nice guy rather than a rabid freedom of speech advocate, he's willing to apologise. On the other hand, he also lays bare the committee's hypocrisy and the effect on Parliament's standing:

Mr Robson had no problem with unreservedly apologising to Mr Dunne however. Mr Robson noted that now that the Committee had decided its punishment he looked forward to Helen Clark referring Don Brash to the Privileges Committee for Dr Brash's comments about the 'corrupt Labour government'.

Mr Robson was however concerned that members of the Committee had inferred that he had lowered Parliaments' standing in the eyes of the public.

"I can't claim the credit for that," he informed Scoop.

Unfortunately, you need to be an MP to raise a complaint of privilege - otherwise I think it would be worth lodging one on both issues. They'd be dismissed of course - but that would simply show the inherently political nature of Parliamentary privilege. Which is yet another reason to get rid of it - it is bad enough that they claim the right to restrict what we can say about them beyond the bounds of ordinary defamation law; it is worse when you consider that they are engaging in what are effectively selective and politically motivated prosecutions of their opponents. We disapprove of this sort of oppression when it occurs in Singapore, and we should not tolerate it here. It is time we put our Parliament on a leash.

The Committee's report is first on the Order Paper, and will be debated immediately after Question Time. National Radio's net feed was playing up yesterday, so people may have to rely on an old and outdated form of technology, which uses (so I am told) broadcast electromagnetic radiation. It's almost like carrier pigeons...

Resurrecting lese majeste

A political commentator criticises someone in power, and is forced to grovel before them for forgiveness on pain of indefinite detention. It's the sort of scene you'd expect to see in an absolute monarchy or shitty third world despotism, in Louis XV's France, in China, or in Bainimarama's Fiji. In fact, it is happening right here in New Zealand. Parliament's Privileges Committee [PDF] has demanded former Progressive MP issue an "unqualified apology" to both Peter Dunne and the House for accurately observing in his "Robson on Politics" newsletter that

The liquor industry’s support for Peter Dunne, as with that of the tobacco, has always meant that he has faithfully delivered his vote for their interests.

If he refuses, the House could - arbitrarily and without trial - fine him, or even imprison him.

The Committee is acting under Standing Order 400(n), which declares as Contempt of Parliament

reflecting on the character or conduct of the House or of a member in a member's capacity as a member of the House

The purpose of this rule, according to the Speaker, is "to protect members going about the business of the House from unfounded, scurrilous allegations of serious impropriety or corruption". It is also, according to the Committee, to ensure that MPs can carry out their duties free of "obstruction". But we shouldn't think that the Committee has forgotten about freedom of speech:

We agree the House must be slow and reluctant to use its penal powers to stifle criticism or even abuse, whether of the machinery of the House or of a member, however strongly the criticism may be expressed and however strongly unjustifiable it may appear. Regard must be had for the importance of preserving freedom of speech in matters of political controversy. Privilege should not be invoked so as to inhibit or discourage the free expression of opinion outside the House, by members and citizens equally, in relation to the conduct of the affairs of the nation. Such criticism is the lifeblood of democracy. A sensible politician must expect it.

Of course, they then go on to do exactly that, on the basis that Robson's observation "diminished the respect due" to the House, and that this somehow "obstructed" Dunne in his duty (by hurting his poor widdle feelings, perhaps?). The resemblance to the ancien regime abuse of lese majeste is not accidental. The "dignity of the sovereign" has simply been appropriated by Parliament - and defended in a similarly abusive fashion.

The resurrection of this ancient abuse is simply outrageous. In case Parliament has forgotten, we live in a democracy, not an absolute monarchy. We are citizens, not serfs. Democratically elected representatives are not "due respect" simply because of their position. Their pretension to deference is exactly that - pretension.

Matt Robson should stand up for his rights to free speech and to criticise our representatives, and tell them in no uncertain terms to go fuck themselves.

The end of the silly season

Parliament resumes today after the christmas break, so there will finally be an end to the local political news drought. Unfortunately, its likely to be a little dull at first, with the unedifying spectacle of the annual debate on the Prime Minister's statement (a set piece in which government and opposition slag one another off for fourteen hours) taking up the first week and most of next Tuesday as well. After that, it should get more interesting.

The government doesn't have much of an agenda at the moment, with a mere 15 bills on the Order Paper and another 20 in select committee. And most of those bills are legislative makework, part of the ongoing process of updating the law, rather than enacting any policy agenda. So it will be interesting to see whether the PM highlights any agenda in her statement, and what legislation is introduced to the House over the next few weeks.

The first Member's Day is likely to be next Wednesday, and they have a lot to get through. There's an unprecedented 31 member's bills before the House (compared to 35 pieces of government legislation), and both the (gutted) anti-smacking bill and Easter trading bills will be up for their second readings. There's plenty on the Order Paper, and more coming back from select committee, so there likely won't be a ballot for a while. However, I'm planning to continue my In the Ballot series as bills come up.

Fiji: the threat

As the Fijian regime keep reminding people who criticise them, Fiji is still under a "state of emergency". This suspension of human rights is supposedly justified by "national security", but it is unclear exactly what the "threat" is (other than people criticising the regime). But now it has become clear: Fiji is threatened by... porn actors:

The Fiji Military Forces is looking for people who appeared in a pornographic movie reportedly filmed locally.

Land Force Commander, Colonel Pita Driti said investigations are underway into the distribution of the pornographic material.

The film which has been dubbed the ‘Fijian Sex Story’ has found its way through the Internet after police uncovered a racket in Navua, Savusavu and Nadi.

"This is a despicable act of shame which Fiji has never seen before and we are working around the clock to apprehend these people."

My first reaction to this was to laugh at the absurdity of it all - oh, those screwed-up missionary societies. But its also scary. Fiji has a military so starved of useful things to do that it has apparently appointed itself guardian of the nation's morals and taken over investigative duties from the police. It's also worth remembering that this self-appointed guardian of Christian virtue has been involved in abuse, beatings, a murder, and reportedly forcing a group of teenage rape suspects to rape one another Abu-Ghraib style as "punishment" [video]. So, what do you think they'll do to a bunch of porn actors if they find them?

Tonga: silencing criticism

Kele'a is a pro-democracy newspaper in Nuku'alofa. On Sunday evening, while they were preparing to go to print, their offices were raided and forcibly closed by armed soldiers. The purported reason is that it is illegal to work on Sundays; however the practice is widespread among Tongan media organisations, there being little other option if you want to publish on a Monday, and it is striking that the pro-government media have not been subjected to similar sanctions. Instead, it seems that the Tongan military are seizing any excuse they can find to silence criticism of the kleptocracy.

Meanwhile, according to Radio Australia,

The Pacific News Service reports the newspaper's latest edition was going to expose a confidential letter from the New Zealand prime minister, urging Tonga to move towards democracy.

It will be interesting to see what Clark has been saying behind the scenes.

The Cullen Fund and the CDP

Last year, I wrote to the Minister of Finance Michael Cullen asking him to direct the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to sign up for the Carbon Disclosure Project - a project which uses the leverage of large institutional shareholders to force companies to publicise and think about their greenhouse gas emissions. The response was not encouraging - however reading Matt Nippert's Listener piece about the Fund's dirty investments, it seems there has been a change of heart:

The Fund’s approach is generally not one of exclusion, says O’Connor. “It’s not really a divestment policy, it’s much more an engagement policy.” She points to the recent decision by the Super Fund to join the Carbon Disclosure Project – an initiative to encourage companies to report on their greenhouse-gas emissions and the risks they face from global warming – as an example of this approach.

So, it's not all bad news, it seems. Now, if only Cullen can get Air New Zealand to do the same thing...

More unethical investing

On Friday, we learned that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund invests in companies that manufacture nuclear weapons. But its worse, much worse. In this week's Listener, Matt Nippert details exactly what our tax money is being invested in - and the results are very dirty indeed. $230 million - almost 10% of the amount directly invested in stocks - is invested in companies whose actions are directly at odds with government policy. We invest in tobacco companies. We invest in casinos. We invest in arms companies and uranium mines. We invest in Big Oil. And we invest in genocide:

Holdings totalling $12.4 million in five companies blacklisted by Columbia University's Endowment Fund because of their role in propping up Sudan’s government. Sudan’s Janjaweed militia have committed genocide during a conflict that has led to more than 200,000 deaths in Darfur.

Yet another example of New Zealand being "a strong supporter of human rights", I suppose.

And if that's not enough, just to add insult to injury, we also invest in Halliburton. $10.7 million in the US's biggest military contractor in Iraq, which helped to build the American gulag in Guantanamo Bay, and which is part owned by US Vice President Dick Cheney. So, we're in business with the one of the chief architects of the Iraq war, and directly profiting from it and the US's global policy of rendition and indefinite detention without trial. Nice.

Some of these investments may be illegal. I'm not sure that investing in BAE and Northrop Grumman violates s5 (2) (b) of the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987 as the Greens allege, but it certainly violates s58 (2) (c) of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001, which requires the Fund to invest in such a way as to

[avoid] prejudice to New Zealand's reputation as a responsible member of the world community.

Many of the other investments fall under the same clause. "Responsible members of the world community" don't support genocide, cluster bombs, gross environmental degradation, or Iraq. But more generally, this is our taxes being invested in this, and I think most of us will be disgusted to learn what it is supporting. It's not good enough to just shrug our shoulders and call it a business decision, when our money is helping to build Guantanamo, or to keep the Sudanese regime in power, thereby aiding and abetting its campaign of genocide in Darfur. It's time we subjected our investments to some proper ethical standards. We should not be supporting our pensioners with blood money.

Just fuck off, Tony

The other night I watched "The Trial of Tony Blair", an amusing British satire about Blair's departure from office and subsequent extradition to The Hague to face war crimes charges over Iraq. It painted a picture of a Blair obsessed with his legacy (and refusing to admit that it was 655,000 dead Iraqis), completely oblivious to the fact that he was universally despised because of Iraq.

It was scarily accurate in all but one respect: rather than waiting for the phone calls to come the day after he leaves Downing Street, Blair has had his staff working on a plan for what he will do after leaving office for the last eighteen months. And he has a cause. After being ejected from Downing Street surrounded by corruption and death, Blair thinks he can resurrect his reputation and salvage his legacy by playing at Al Gore and saving the world from climate change. This remember is a man committed to cheap air travel - to the externalisation of costs and continued subsidisation of airlines by the public, in other words - who does not walk the talk by offsetting his own emissions or travel, who has undermined the efforts of his own government to cut emissions, and whose greatest contribution on the issue has been to toady to the Americans and provide cover for their morally untenable position - just as he has done on Iraq.

But quite apart from having no credibility on the issue, Tony has another problem as well: after Iraq, he is pure political poison who will contaminate any issue he aligns himself to. His input would be counterproductive.

So, my message to Blair is just fuck off, OK? We don't want you, we don't need you, and if you want to save the world from climate change, keep talking about how you're committed to cheap air travel and refuse to change your lifestyle one iota in order to reduce your emissions. I can't think of anything more likely to turn people away from those ideas than that.

No plans to sign

New Zealand claims to be strong supporter of human rights on the international stage. However, last week the government refused to sign the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, a human rights treaty similar to the Convention Against Torture which would outlaw the practice of forced disappearance and ensure that its perpetrators are brought to justice. I was a little curious as to why, and so I asked MFAT. Their response was to reiterate New Zealand's strong support for human rights, and to note that

New Zealand joined consensus supporting the adoption of this Convention in the United Nations General Assembly Third Committee in November 2006. At this time New Zealand also gave an explanation of position which is available on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade website.

That statement of position can be read here. The primary concerns seem to be around inconsistencies with existing international law, notably the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. However, the inconsistencies are not great (the Rome statute defines "enforced disappearance" slightly differently, to include disappearances carried out by "political organisations" rather than just states, but also requires that they be "for a prolonged period of time"), and in both the examples given, they note that the Convention can be interpreted in a manner consistent with that statute and that New Zealand intends to do so. Furthermore, it is perfectly possible - and indeed, common practice - to sign a treaty with that sort of reservation on interpretation. However, the government does not intend to do so. According to an MFAT spokesperson, New Zealand "has no immediate plans" to sign or ratify the Convention.

Whether this is consistent with our claimed "strong support of human rights" is left as an exercise for the reader.

Turkmenistan's sham election

Turkmenistan voted in its first ever multi-candidate election yesterday, to choose a successor to late President-for-life Saparmurat Niyazov. However, while turnout was high, the election seems to be the usual Central Asian sham. The candidates were screened by the People's Council, a partially elected body in which the ruling Democratic Party of Turkmenistan holds every seat, and opposition candidates were not allowed to stand (the leader of the opposition in the country, Nurberdy Nurmammedov, was subsequently arrested). Meanwhile, the People's Council also changed the constitution to allow Acting President Gurbanguli Berdymukhamedov to run, and the chief electoral officer has said he will "do everything" to ensure Berdymukhamedov's victory. So, the people of Turkmenistan have a choice between six government candidates, with the outcome likely to be pre-determined regardless of how they cast their ballots. Its a slight improvement on the old days, when they only had a "choice" of one candidate - but its a long, long way from democracy.

Choice wins in Portugal

Portugal went to the polls over the weekend in a referendum over whether to legalise abortion (currently illegal except in cases of rape, deformity, or the health of the mother). But while a clear majority of voters backed legalisation, turnout fell below the 50% required to make it legally binding. Despite this, the Portugese Prime Minister has announced that his government will legalise anyway - meaning that Portugese women will no longer have to cross the border into Spain or risk their lives in a backstreet clinic.

This will leave only Ireland, Malta and Poland banning abortion within the EU. I wonder how long it will take before they catch up with the modern world?

Climate change: feral foresters

When the government proposed that farmers make a token contribution towards the cost of researching a solution to the emissions from their belching cows and overuse of fertiliser, they went feral. Why should they pay for their problem, rather than being able to dump the costs on the taxpayer? So they drove a tractor up Parliament steps, and (in the mind of the public, at least; actually, their industry bodies paid up), defeated the "fart tax". Now it looks as if the forest-owners are going to try the same thing: a widespread campaign against any move by the government to impose a deforestation charge.

Let's be clear: New Zealand is a party to the Kyoto Protocol, and thanks to Russia, it is now in force. This means that every tree cut down now costs us money - about $12,000 a hectare at current carbon price (and it could easily be twice that). It is both fair and appropriate that forest-owners - the people cutting down those trees - pay that cost, rather than it being borne by the taxpayer. What the forest-owners are effectively asking for here is a subsidy. And I see no reason why the rest of us should be subsidising their profits.

Marsden B doomed?

It looks as if the government's clear signal that it is planning to internalise the cost of carbon will spell doom for Marsden B - the power station is just uneconomic if the true environmental costs of its operation are taken into account. Which really makes you think about how things might have been if the government had been able to internalise that cost back in 1997, when it was first proposed. Our electricity sector would be looking quite different, with more hydro and wind, and significantly less gas than at present. And of course there would have been no question that Huntly would switch back to using coal. Unfortunately, ten years of dithering have allowed fossil fuel emissions to grow unchecked, and it will now be that much harder to force them back down than if we'd done it right the first time.

Field to be charged?

According to the Sunday Star-Times police are likely to charge Taito Philip Field in the next two weeks with violating the Immigration Act and with Corruption. The latter could carry a penalty of up to fourteen years in prison if in his role as a minister, or seven years if done as an MP.

It couldn't happen to a nicer guy. And hopefully, this will give the Labour caucus the chance they need to evict Field from their party for good. They never needed his vote - the Greens' abstention guaranteed that - but merely being associated with him is pure political poison.

Typically misleading

DPF is up to his usual tricks again, this time with a graph of government revenue over the past six years being used as a rhetorical prop to argue for (what else?) tax cuts for the rich. But as usual, he's being more than a little misleading - and quite deliberately so.

Firstly, there is the use of nominal (dollar) figures and total crown revenue and expenditure statistics. But as I've pointed out before, this is grossly misleading. Nominal figures inflate the difference between past and present expenditure by failing to correct for inflation or GDP growth. Because of this, the proper way to compare government spending and revenue over time is as a percentage of GDP growth, rather than in nominal dollars. "Total crown" figures include not only government spending and revenue, but also every dollar earned and spent by SOEs and crown entities. As much as the right would like to pretend, growth in this statistic (or at least the SOE and Crown Entity component) is not a sign of expanding government, and it does not represent government spending which could be "returned to taxpayers" as tax cuts. Instead, it is the result of growth in government-owned businesses - which to the extent it represents an increase in the government's wealth, and in its dividend income, is something we should welcome.

(I should add that a large part in the growth in total revenue in 2006 is due to exactly this reason. In its fiscal outlook [PDF], the December 2006 Half Year Economic & Fiscal Update noted that SOEs and Crown Entities made "large investment gains, resulting from strong global equity markets and one-off gains on sale of physical assets". These amounted to about 1.3% of GDP).

So, DPF is being misleading. As a former spindoctor, it was his job to mislead, and I guess old habits die hard. But he has included some valid statistics in the form of taxation revenue as a percentage of GDP, which does show an increase, both over time, and over the last year. Does this alone prove his point?

No. As the table below shows, the increase in 2006 DPF relies upon to prove his point was a one-off:

(Stolen from the December 2006 HYEFU Forecast Financial Statements [PDF])

The 2006 Budget Forecast Financial Statements [PDF] predicted 2006 tax revenue to be 31.7% of GDP. It turned out to be much higher, but is expected to decline thereafter to a long-term average of about 31% of GDP. This is an increase since 2000, but not as much as DPF makes out. Part of that increase (about 1% of GDP) is due to fiscal drag (which the government is finally moving to eliminate); the rest is due to a policy decision to make the tax system more progressive by taxing the rich more to fund public services for all - something I don't think anyone should be apologising for.

As for the source of this windfall, comparing the budget and half-yearly fiscal updates is informative. Essentially, it came about to due a far stronger economy than expected. Higher growth in wages due to the tight labour market and unions pushing for increases resulted in individual taxes being $746 million more than expected. But the real surprise is in corporate taxation: this was up by $1.36 billion - 15%! - due to strong economic growth and higher corporate profits. This won't last - corporate taxes follow the business cycle and have already returned to forecast levels, but in the meantime its a nice little windfall - and all the more startling when you remember that corporate taxes amount to on average 18% of tax revenues - compared to 48% for personal taxes.

As for DPF, when you dig into it, his argument boils down to two claims, that a) a one-off (but not enormous compared to the size of the overall budget) windfall justifies a significant permanent reduction in revenue; and b) that the rich need a tax cut because they're doing so well at the moment. Needless to say, I don't think either argument holds water. But then, I'm not a member of the National Party...

Layout fixed

Thanks to zANavAShi, the Great Old Ones have been sealed away with the Elder Sign the layout has been fixed, and now resizes properly and works in IE6 (and, apprently, Opera8, though I haven't checked it). I'm not sure about other browsers, but that should cover most people.

Meanwhile, I've become aware that there's a validation problem with the new RSS feeds. Unfortunately, this isn't something I have any control over - I just click a box, and Blogger does the rest. They do seem to work OK in BlogLines, though, and the LJ feed still works for those of you who like to get NRT that way. People who seriously use RSS (I don't) may want to suggest a way around the problem.

So, what next? There's a "recent posts" hack similar to the comments one, which I'm thinking of installing (the archive is likely to be too unweildy after a few days, so I'll zip it up to "monthly"), and I'm thinking of using Feedblitz so people can get NRT by email. And of course I need to get my labelling scheme properly sorted out. But for the moment, I'm just happy that things are working properly again.